Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37314989›Full record

ArticlePloS one2023

A comparison of biomonitoring methodologies for surf zone fish communities.

Zachary Gold, McKenzie Q Koch, Nicholas K Schooler, Kyle A Emery, Jenifer E Dugan, Robert J Miller, Henry M Page, Donna M Schroeder, David M Hubbard, Jessica R Madden and 2 more

Open access · goldAbstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
7citing papers in PubMed
7.4field-weighted citation impact, top 2% of its field
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

7 citing papers in PubMed, 30 citations in OpenAlex.

  1. Article
  2. Evaluating the influence of marine protected areas on surf zone fish.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2024
    Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

12 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.

Zachary GoldDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America.ORCID 0000-0003-0490-7630
McKenzie Q KochDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America.
Nicholas K SchoolerMarine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States of America.
Kyle A EmeryMarine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States of America.
Jenifer E DuganMarine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States of America.
Robert J MillerMarine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States of America.
Henry M PageMarine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States of America.
Donna M SchroederBureau of Ocean Energy Management, Camarillo, CA, United States of America.
David M HubbardMarine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States of America.
Jessica R MaddenMarine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States of America.
Stephen G WhitakerMarine Science Institute, University of California, Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara, CA, United States of America.
Paul H BarberDepartment of Ecology and Evolutionary Biology, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, United States of America.
University of California, Santa Barbara · USUniversity of California, Los Angeles · US

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Surf zones are highly dynamic marine ecosystems that are subject to increasing anthropogenic and climatic pressures, posing multiple challenges for biomonitoring. Traditional methods such as seines and hook and line surveys are often labor intensive, taxonomically biased, and can be physically hazardous. Emerging techniques, such as baited remote underwater video (BRUV) and environmental DNA (eDNA) are promising nondestructive tools for assessing marine biodiversity in surf zones of sandy beaches. Here we compare the relative performance of beach seines, BRUV, and eDNA in characterizing community composition of bony (teleost) and cartilaginous (elasmobranch) fishes of surf zones at 18 open coast sandy beaches in southern California. Seine and BRUV surveys captured overlapping, but distinct fish communities with 50% (18/36) of detected species shared. BRUV surveys more frequently detected larger species (e.g. sharks and rays) while seines more frequently detected one of the most abundant species, barred surfperch (Amphistichus argenteus). In contrast, eDNA metabarcoding captured 88.9% (32/36) of all fishes observed in seine and BRUV surveys plus 57 additional species, including 15 that frequent surf zone habitats. On average, eDNA detected over 5 times more species than BRUVs and 8 times more species than seine surveys at a given site. eDNA approaches also showed significantly higher sensitivity than seine and BRUV methods and more consistently detected 31 of the 32 (96.9%) jointly observed species across beaches. The four species detected by BRUV/seines, but not eDNA were only resolved at higher taxonomic ranks (e.g. Embiotocidae surfperches and Sygnathidae pipefishes). In frequent co-detection of species between methods limited comparisons of richness and abundance estimates, highlighting the challenge of comparing biomonitoring approaches. Despite potential for improvement, results overall demonstrate that eDNA can provide a cost-effective tool for long-term surf zone monitoring that complements data from seine and BRUV surveys, allowing more comprehensive surveys of vertebrate diversity in surf zone habitats.

Indexed as

Biological MonitoringDNA, EnvironmentalAnimalsBiodiversityEcosystemFishesDNA, Environmental

Identifiers

PMID37314989
PMCPMC10266690
OpenAlexW4380686383

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC0
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.